identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A17C30FF9D9574B4D172F2FF01FCC0.text	03A17C30FF9D9574B4D172F2FF01FCC0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cubanomysis manuelortizi Hendrickx & Hernandez-Payan 2023	<div><p>Cubanomysis manuelortizi Hendrickx &amp; Hernández-Payán, 2023</p><p>Cubanomysis manuelortizi Hendrickx &amp; Hernández-Payán, 2023 in Hendrickx et al. 2023: 205, figs. 8‒11.</p><p>Material used for drawings and observation of setal pattern. Male (CL 1.45 mm, TL 4.33 mm), female (CL 1.07 mm, TL 3.69 mm), December 3, 2024, Bay of Mazatlán (23.215398º N 106.425692º W), SE Gulf of California, Mexico, about 5.5 m depth, collector LIB party (ICML-EMU-14069). 20 males (CL 0.90‒1.27 mm, TL 3.64‒4.41 mm), 20 females (CL 0.76‒0.97 mm, TL 2.82‒3.77 mm), and 20 ovigerous females (CL 0.88‒1.24 mm, TL 3.34‒ 4.24 mm), same data as above (ICML-EMU-14123) .</p><p>Additional material. 1241 specimens, 621 males (CL 0.89‒1.36 mm, TL 3.05‒4.25 mm) and 620 females (CL 0.80‒1.02 mm, TL 2.78‒4.17 mm), same data as above (ICML-EMU-14070, 14071) . 5 males, same data as above (SIO-PIC-0026415) . 5 females, same data as above (SIO-PIC-0026414) .</p><p>Additional description (based on male) (ICML-EMU-14069). Carapace elongated, with servical sulcus present and strong, seventh thoracic somite covered by the carapace, the latter slightly produced anteriorly in a small triangular rostrum, blunt process; antero-lateral margins well developed (Fig. 1A, B).</p><p>Eyes (Fig. 1A, B) similar to illustration by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8A), large, semi-oval, cornea wider than long, less than half eye length.</p><p>Antennular peduncle (Fig. 1D) similar to illustration by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8B), short; article 1 rectangular, longer than articles 2 and 3 but with one simple setae on inner distal edge; article 2 smaller than other two and with 2 simple setae on ventral surface; article 3 sub-rectangular, almost as wide as long, small process in middle of distal margin, with small, slightly curved, apical spine, one simple setae on outer distal edge, near base of processus masculinus; processus masculinus (Fig. 1D and magnification) similar to illustration by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8C), elongate, but differing by its slightly more rectangular shape, and featuring a series of long setae covering almost the entire process (setae missing in the original description).</p><p>Antennal peduncle (Fig. 1C) similar in size and proportion as in illustration by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8D), where the peduncle is 3-articulated and shorter than scale; article 1 short, sub-triangular, articles 2 and 3 rectangular, almost of same length; number and position of simple setae in distal, outer edge similar to the original description. In the case of the antennal scale, the size, form, and proportions are similar to the original description, with the distal suture well marked. However, the presence of a prominent, curved spine near the inner margin of article 1 of peduncle (Fig. 1C) was not reported by Hendrickx et al. (2023).</p><p>Mandibles (Fig. 2A). Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig: 8E) only described the mandibular palp which matches the characteristics of the presently examined material: 3-articulated; first article short and naked, median article widening in distal third, with the same number of simple setae on outer and inner margins, terminal article elongated with some simple setae on inner and outer margins, barbed spines near apex and curved setae on apical border. Right mandible (Fig. 2A) well developed; incisive process large, composed of a chitinous ridge; a small lacinia mobilis located between incisor and molar process; small spinules in the edge of molar process. Left mandible (Fig. 2A) well developed; incisive process strong, consisting of one chitinous ridge; lacinia mobilis present, well developed, consisting of 3 teeth (Fig. 2A).</p><p>Labrum (Fig. 2D). Not previously illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023). Symmetrical, diamond-like, anterior margin with dense row of simple, short setae.</p><p>Maxillula (Fig. 2B). Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8F) described the maxillula with an outer lobe with 8 robust, apical setae; new material examined herein indicated it is armed with 9 robust setae, some barbed; the inner lobe present the 2 robust, plumose apical setae, represented as simple setae by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8F); in addition, there is a small curved setae on inner proximal edge of the inner lobe (Fig. 2B).</p><p>Maxilla (Fig. 2C). Endopod and exopod feature similar shape, size, and characteristics as in Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8G), but the 5 long, robust, marginal setae in the exopod, broken and apparently naked in the original description, are in fact plumose (Fig. 2C).</p><p>Thoracopods. Missing in the holotype, illustrated and described herein (Fig. 3A–D, 4A–D). First thoracopod (Fig. 3A) robust, smaller than second; thoracopods 3‒8 largest than second, almost the same size. Carpopropodus of thoracopod 3‒8 with 2 articles, flagellum of exopod 1‒8 with 8 articles.</p><p>Thoracopod 1 (Fig. 3A) basis not projecting; ischium with 3 simple setae; merus with 5 simple setae; carpopropodus with 4 simple setae on inner margin and 5 on outer, some stronger than other; dactylus about 1/3 length of propodus, with 8 simple setae, 5 stronger, nail straight, longer than dactylus; exopod almost 2 times as long as endopod, 8-articulated, each article with one long plumose seta, except last article with 2 long, apical plumose setae.</p><p>Thoracopod 2 (Fig. 3B) endopod longer, slender than endopod of first thoracopod but shorter than third; ischium short, with one small plumose setae on inner margin; merus with one plumose setae on outer margin and 10 simple setae on inner margin; carpus and propodus almost the same length, carpus with one simple setae on outer distal edge and 5 simple setae on inner margin; propodus with 2 simple setae on both margins; dactylus short semi-oval, 4 simple setae on inner margin, one on ventral surface, and 5 on outer margin of which 2 are simple and 3 are serrated; nail straight, strong, longer than dactylus; exopod longer than endopod, 8-articulated, each article with one long, plumose seta, except last article with 2 long plumose setae.</p><p>Thoracopod 3‒8 (Fig. 3C, D, 4A‒D) with long, slender endopod, all almost same length as exopod; basis with one short, plumose setae on inner margin and a curved, blunt spine on outer margin; pre-ischium trapezoid, without setae; ischium inner margin with series of long, simple setae; merus shorter than ischium, inner margin with series of simple setae, with 2 simple, shorter setae on outer margin; carpus and propodus of almost same size, together little shorter than merus, both with long, simple setae on inner margin and one slightly shorter, barded seta on outer margin (Fig. 4D); dactyl short, sub-triangular, with a very long, slender seta; exopods almost same size as endopods, 8-articulated, each article with long, plumose setae as in thoracopods 1 and 2.</p><p>Penis (Fig. 4E). Not illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023). Cylindrical-shaped, with one long, simple setae on distal margin.</p><p>Pleopods (Fig. 5A‒E). Male pleopods 2‒5 were illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 9A‒D) and are similar in the new material. Missing pleopod 1 (Fig. 5A) features an endopod reduced to a single lobe (pseudobranchia), with a few short, simple setae; the exopod is covered with long, plumose setae on both margins.</p><p>Uropods (Fig. 6A) of the new material examined herein match those reported by Hendrickx et al. (2023: figs. 8H, 10E). The length and proportions of the exopod are similar, almost twice as long as telson and little more than 8 times as long as wide, and it is covered with long plumose setae (Fig. 6A), not described by Hendrickx et al. (2023). Endopod is similar to the illustration provided by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 8H), 1/4 shorter than exopod and wider near its base, with statocyst well marked. Another difference with the original description is the number of robust, spine-like setae on inner ventral margin: 14 vs. 19 in the original description, but this is believed to be related with size of the specimens. The endopod is covered with long, plumose setae (Fig. 6A), not illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2003 figs. 8H, 10E), setae increasing in size distally.</p><p>Telson (Fig. 6B) is almost an exact match to the original description, short, pear-shaped, lateral margins unarmed, strongly constricted posteriorly, with a semicircular distal cleft; the telson examined herein, however, is proportionally slightly wider than in the original description, and the number of apical, robust setae is slightly different, 15 vs. 14 in the original description.</p><p>Additional female description. Similar to male.</p><p>Antennular peduncle (Fig. 1E). Not illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023). Slender than in males, 3-articulated; first article rectangular, longer than the other two, with 2 simple setae on distal ventral surface and one on outer distal edge; article 2 the shortest, about 1/2 length of third, with 2 simple setae on ventral surface; article 3 sub-rectangular, little longer than wide, with 2 simple setae on inner margin and a lobe ending in a sharp spinule on the distodorsal margin.</p><p>Female pleopods 1‒5 (Fig. 5F‒J). Not illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023). Uniramous, small, similar in size except pleopod 5 which is notably larger than the others and features a distal, rectangular projection; all pleopods with 7‒9 distal, plumose setae.</p><p>Marsupium of female comprised of 2 pairs of oostegites.</p><p>Setal armature in males and females</p><p>Due to the large number of specimens in good conditions and of various size collected during this survey, number of robust, apical setae on the telson (both sides), number of setae in the cleft, and number of setae on the inner ventral margin of the uropodal endopod were computed (Appendix 1). Selected examples were illustrated (Fig. 7).</p><p>The number of apical, robust setae in the telson vary from 2 to 3. Specimens were observed with 2 robust setae at each edge, or with 2 left and 3 right setae, or vice versa. However, the same numbers of setae, 2 or 3, were recorded regardless of the sex or size of the specimens. In the case of setae in the cleft, the number varied from 4 to 9. The lowest number (4) was found in females (see Appendix 1), and the highest (9) in males and ovigerous females. All setae considered (i.e., both left and right apical, plus cleft setae), maximum number was 12 for males, 12 for females, and 14 for ovigerous females (Appendix 1). Although there is variation in the number of apical setae in the telson, this variation does not appear to depend on the size of the specimens given that the smallest specimen (CL 0.80 mm) examined had 9 ventral setae in the cleft and a maximum of 15 setae in total, as illustrated (Fig. 7B).</p><p>The number of robust setae on the inner ventral margin of the endopod varied from 10 to 19. The lowest number (10) was present in males and females (Appendix 1) while the highest (19) was observed in an ovigerous female; the highest numbers of setae were observed in larger specimens (see Appendix 1).</p><p>The data provided in the original description by Hendrickx et al. (2023) for the males (holotype and one paratype) were 14 robust setae in total on distal margin of the telson (3 on each side and 8 in the cleft), and 19 robust setae on the inner ventral margin of the uropodal endopod. These numbers match the range of setae observed in the additional material examined herein. In the case of the female, numbers observed by Hendrickx et al. (2023; allotype) were 19 apical setae on the telson (3+13+3) vs. 2‒3+4‒9+ 2‒3 in the additional material examined herein, and 28 robust setae on the uropodal endopod vs. 12‒19 in the additional material examined herein (Appendix I).</p><p>Comparison with other species of the genus Cubanomysis .</p><p>In the original description of C. manuelortizi, Hendrickx et al. (2023) emphasized the characters distinguishing the new species from its two congeneric species C. jimenesi, the type species of the genus, and C. mysteriosa . Considering the additional description now available, particularly of some appendages that had not been illustrated in the original description, this comparison can be completed as follows.</p><p>Mandibles. According to Băcescu (1968), Cubanomysis jimenesi features a wide chewing surface and an incisor portion with short teeth. In the case of C. mysteriosa, Gleye (1962) reported that C. jimenesi possesses a broad masticatory surface with small teeth on the cutting edge. However, neither of these authors illustrated this character. In C. manuelortizi (Fig. 2A), both mandibles are well-developed, with a large incisive process composed of a chitinous crest and a lacinia mobilis. In the case of the left mandible, the lacinia mobilis is more developed and consists of 3 large teeth.</p><p>Labrum. According to Băcescu (1968), in C. jimenesi this appendage (described but not illustrated) is rounded anteriorly and lacks any extension. Gleye (1962) did not described or illustrated this appendage for C. mysteriosa . In C. manuelortizi, the anterior margin is symmetrical and has a dense row of short, simple setae (Fig. 2D).</p><p>Maxillula. According to Băcescu (1968), the maxilla of C. jimenesi (described but not illustrated) features a strong external protuberance (external lobe), without accessory structures, and the internal plate (internal lobe) bears 2 long, feathery setae, similar to the internal lobe of C. manuelortizi (Fig. 2B), which also features 2 long, feathery setae on the internal lobe, in addition to a small, curved seta on the proximal inner edge of the internal lobe, a characteristic not reported in C. jimenesi .</p><p>Thoracopod 1. This appendage was neither illustrated nor described for C. jimenesi (Băcescu 1968) . However, in the case of C. mysteriosa Gleye (1982) reported that the endopod of the first thoracic limb is strong, and its dactyl bears a slightly curved claw, slightly longer than the dactyl (Gleye 1982). Compared to C. manuelortizi, this appendage is different since the dactyl bears 8 simple setae, 5 of which are stronger, and the claw is longer than the dactyl and straight (Fig. 3A).</p><p>Thoracopod 2. This appendage was not illustrated for C. jimenesi but it was described (Băcescu 1968). The distal segment has 3 strong, short, curved and feathery setae, in addition to 5 simple setae + 1 serrated seta on the distal curvature, without an apparent dactyl claw. In the case of C. mysteriosa, this appendage is more robust and was illustrated and described by Gleye (1982), who reported that the last article of the endopod of the second thoracic limb also bears 3, feathery, curved setae, and 7 simple setae. In both cases, these characteristics differ from C. manuelortizi which features a dactyl with 4 simple setae on the inner margin, one on the ventral surface, and 5 on the outer margin, of which 2 are simple and 3 are serrated, in addition to a straight, strong claw, longer than the dactyl (Fig. 3B).</p><p>Thoracopods 3‒8. Băcescu (1968) uses the nomenclature of “peréiopodes” to refer to these appendages in C. jimenesi . He shortly described these appendages as extremely thin, without spines, with only some slightly feathery setae, with a 2-segmented carpopropodus, and with the thoracopod exopods having 7‒8 large articles. However, in the original description of this species, this author illustrated what he calls thoracopods I–II (Băcescu 1968: fig. 1D, E), which in reality would be thoracopods 3 (in part) and 4 (complete). Some characteristics coincide between C. jimenesi and C. manuelortizi, e.g., the endopods are elongated and thin, the carpopropodus is 2-segmented, and the exopod has 8 large articles. Unique features of C. manuelortizi compared to the other two species of Cubanomysis are: the base of the endopods has a short, feathery seta on the inner margin with a curved, blunt spine on the outer margin, and a short, toothed seta on the outer margin of the carpopropodus (Fig. 3C, D, 4A–D). In the case of C. mysteriosa, Gleye (1982) referred to these appendages as “thoracic limb” and mentioned that the endopods of limbs 3‒8 are delicate and that, as in C. jimenesi, the carpopropodus is divided into 2 sub-articulations (2-segmented), and that the exopods present 8 large articles. However, Gleye (1982) did not provide illustration of these appendages.</p><p>Penis. This appendage had not been previously illustrated in any of the three species of the genus. However, in the original description of C. jimenesi, Băcescu (1968) reported that it is cylindrical, relatively short (only 2.5 x longer than its diameter), and has a long, simple terminal seta. These characteristics coincide with the material illustrated herein for C. manuelortizi (Fig. 4E).</p><p>Pleopods 2–5 of male C. manuelortizi have already been illustrated by Hendrickx et al. (2023: fig. 9A‒D). Compared to C. jimenesi and C. mysteriosa, they present the same characteristics: pleopods large, biramous, with a gill plate. Pleopod 1, however, was not illustrated for C. manuelortizi (see Fig. 5A). This appendage coincides with the description and illustration of Băcescu (1968) for C. jimenesi, noting that the gill plate, the “respiratory lobe,” of the endopodite presents a simple internal bulge (Băcescu, 1968: fig. 1H), which is similar to what we can observe in C. manuelortizi (Fig. 5A). Regarding the females, the pleopods of C. mysteriosa and C. manuelortizi were not or incompletely illustrated. In the case of C. jimenesi, Băcescu (1968) illustrated pleopod 5 (Băcescu 1968: fig. 1I) and mentioned that these appendages are tiny, uniarticulated extensions, which also coincides with what was observed in C. manuelortizi (Fig. 5F‒J). In the later species, all pleopods are uniramous, small and of similar size, except for pleopod 5, which is noticeably larger than the others and with a rectangular, distal projection (Fig. 5J).</p><p>Uropods. In the case of this appendage, the size and proportion are similar in all three species of the genus, with the endopods shorter than the exopods. However, the number of spines on the inner margin varies in each species; in C. jimenesi it presents 10‒11 short spines (Băcescu, 1968: fig. 1J), while C. mysteriosa presents 10 spines on the inner margin (Gleye, 1982: fig. 2f). In C. manuelortizi there is a greater number of spines, 14‒19, on the inner margin compared to the other two species (see Appendix I‒II). We believe that this variation could be related to the size of the specimens.</p><p>Species size. Regarding the size of the species, Hendrickx et al. (2013) reported males of CL 1.23‒1.35 and TL 2.73‒3.14 mm, and a female of CL 1.42 mm and TL 4.43 mm. The size range (TL) of the specimens examined herein was 2.82–4.41 mm (60 specimens); males, 3.64–4.41 mm (20); females, 2.82–3.77 mm (20); ovigerous female 3.34–4.24 mm (20) (see Appendix I–II). Comparatively, size range for C. jimenesi, is 3.5–4.5 mm (TL) (Băcescu 1968) and 3 mm (TL) for C. mysteriosa (Gleye 1982) .</p><p>Coloration. Transparent in C. jimenesi (Băcescu 1968) . No report on color in C. mysteriosa (Gleye 1982) . Color in C. manuelortizi is transparent too, as in C. jimenesi .</p><p>Habitat. The type material was collected with a zooplankton net, at about 5 m depth (total depth unknown). The additional, abundant material reported herein was captured with an epibenthic sledge, near bottom in depth of ca 5.5 m. As many other species of mysids, C. manuelortizi probably features a benthopelagic behavior (see Nouvel et al. 1999). Vertical migration at night, however, remained a possibility to be studied with further, day and night, regular sampling in the area.</p><p>Reproductive aspects. In the original description of C. jimenesi Băcescu (1968) mentions in his biological observations that the "cold" season is a period of intense reproduction for C. jimenesi, with a clear dominance of adult females (121 specimens, 61%), of which 95 carried eggs or embryos. In the case of C. manuelortizi we observed a similar behavior. In the sample analyzed in December ("cold" season), a total of 1303 specimens were captured, with a slight dominance of adult females (661) of which 346 (52%) carried eggs or embryos in different stage. Băcescu (1968) also mentioned that females of C. jimenesi usually carry 2‒ 3 eggs or embryos, four embryos rarely found, and five exceptionally. In the case of C. manuelortizi, the number of eggs or embryos carried in adult ovigerous females is usually 4‒5, occasionally up to 8 eggs or embryos (see Appendix II).</p><p>New record. The material collected in this study represents the second known locality for this species (Fig. 8).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A17C30FF9D9574B4D172F2FF01FCC0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Hernández-Payán, José Carlos;Hendrickx, Michel E.	Hernández-Payán, José Carlos, Hendrickx, Michel E. (2026): Redescription of Cubanomysis manuelortizi Hendrickx & Hernández-Payán, 2023 (Crustacea, Mysida, Mysidae) based on a new record from Southeast Gulf of California, Mexico. Zootaxa 5828 (2): 318-332, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.7, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.7
